Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2010 (12) TMI 1197

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ppellant is bad and erroneous in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. That the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals) erred in law and on facts in restricting the exemption u/s 54 to ₹ 24,54,902/- being 50% of total investment just because the deed is registered in joint names ignoring the fact that the investment in the new property was made solely out of appellant s own funds and disregarding the affidavit given by Mr.Vikram Bhide to the effect that he does not have ownership interest in the property. 3. That the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals) erred in law and on facts in restricting the exemption u/s 54EC to ₹ 25,00,000/- being 50% of total investmen .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... erest and dividend income. The AO observed that during the year, the assessee sold her residential property for ₹ 2,21,00,000/- and had invested an amount of ₹ 49,09,804/- on purchase of residential property and claimed exemption u/s 54 of the Act. On verification of the purchase deed of the said property dated 25-12-2006 registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Havelli, Pune, he found that the above property was not in the name of the assessee alone but was also in the name of her husband. He, therefore, held that if the ownership of the property is shared with someone else, then the property cannot be said to be purchased by the assessee alone and therefore only 50% of the investment is to be allowed as exempt in the han .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... laced reliance upon the orders of the authorities below and submitted that since the assessee was not the sole owner of the property or the Bonds, she is not entitled to the exemption of the entire amount but is entitled to the exemption as per ratio of the ownership in the new property. 5. Having heard both the parties and having considered the rival contentions, we find that the only dispute is whether the assessee is entitled to exemption under sections 54 and 54EC on the amount invested by her in the purchase of new residential property and also Rural Electrification Corporation Ltd., Bonds. There is no dispute that the investment in the new residential property as well as in the Bonds has flown from the sale consideration received b .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... a property form out of their own common fund, they are entitled to interest in such property in the proportion of their interests in the common fund and only where there is no evidence as to their interests in the fund, they shall be presumed to have equal interest in the property. Thus, it could be seen that section 45 of the Transfer of Property Act provides for only the quantum of interest in the property and not the quality of interest of the joint transferees. Applying this provision to the case before us, it is seen that the assessee has paid the whole sale consideration though she has joined her husband as the joint transferee and therefore the assessee has 100% interest in the said property. Section 54 of the I T Act only provides t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... (supra) we find that the Hon ble Punjab Haryana High Court was considering the case of an assessee who sold agricultural land and invested the same in the purchase of new land and the new land was registered in the name of the assessee and his son s name as co-owners. The Hon ble Punjab Haryana High Court held that when the land in question was purchased out of sale proceeds of the agricultural land which was used only for agricultural purposes and merely because the assessee s son was shown in the sale deed as co-owner, it did not make any difference and the assessee was entitled to deduction u/s 54B of the Act. Respectfully following the decisions of the Hon ble High Courts of Madras and also Hon ble Punjab Haryana High Court, we h .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates